http://knowledgenuts.com/2015/07/18/meso...ilization/

Quote:For many years, we believed that Mesopotamia was the “cradle of civilization” because the oldest evidence of a written language was found there. However, archaeologists have discovered the Dispilio tablet in Greece which dates to 5260 BC. More recently, they’ve also found tablets in the Danube Valley that appear to contain a written language. Those tablets date to 5500 BC. A debate rages among archaeologists as to whether these Danube Valley symbols are decorations or a written language. If found to be the world’s oldest written language, it would mean that, as far as we know, civilization began in the Danube Valley, not Mesopotamia.

The problem with this is that we only find what endures.  Someone could have invented paper 10,000 years ago and written an Encyclopedia but because paper rots in moist climates the chances of finding a remnant are slim to none.  There was nothing miraculous about the survival of Egyptian papyri or the Dead Sea Scrolls ( generally parchment) because the climates they were found in were dry as bones.

Do you think there is any general consensus regarding whether written language arose separately in more than one place vs being discovered one place and dispersed? I'd guess the former.

Archaeologist, Israel Finkelstein, of Tel Aviv University sees the development of literacy as one of the primary needs of true statehood.  It seems to arise when a polity expands to the point of needing record-keeping.  In other words, if the king can't get on a horse and see his whole kingdom in a day then he needs some way to keep track of what is his.

I suspect that means it developed where needed and as needed in whatever format was appropriate for that area.  If people were writing on the back of tree bark 6,000 years ago we are not likely to ever find evidence of it.

This is as opposed to the idea of coins which were developed in the Greek city-states around the Aegean c 700 BC and which were such a rousing great idea that everyone jumped on the bandwagon.

(July 21, 2015 at 2:49 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The problem with this is that we only find what endures.  Someone could have invented paper 10,000 years ago and written an Encyclopedia but because paper rots in moist climates the chances of finding a remnant are slim to none.

Not very likely. Culture requires organisation. And an organised society is likely to leave behind something enduring. The leaders of said society would want to perpetuate their achievements. So, written in stone or impressive monuments such as Stone Henge are likely to be the real deal. Not to forget the cave paintings of Lascaux or Altamira. Or, especially, since it's very close to home the Venus of Willendorf, discovered in 1908 and estimated to be between 20- and 25.000 years old



Another question entirely is the authenticity of this to be writing. As your article mentions, there's still a debate going on. But, to go back to the Venus of Willendorf. Willendorf is right on the banks of the Danube. So there certainly was a civilization there, reaching back at least 20.000 years.

The point is that they are applying the term "civilization" to it on the assumption that what they see is writing.  Right now I think that is a bridge too far based on what they have uncovered but certainly worthy of further investigation.

If a culture builds primarily out of mud brick and then dies out the mud brick will eventually dissolve even as a result of sporadic rains. If it rains once a year in a century that is 100 rain storms and trust me, when it rains in the desert it fucking rains!  A town 30 miles west of here got smashed by flash floods a couple of nights ago.  What lasts is stone and not every culture develops in an area where usable building stone exists or is easily attainable.  I was just having an email exchange with a buddy in Holland who asked about the utility of covered wooden bridges in New England.  The reason was to keep the rain/snow out.  Much easier to replace the roof than the bridge.  He noted that in Europe they built bridges out of stone which require less maintenance.  While true, colonial and post-revolutionary America lacked the road infrastructure to move large quantities of stone.  So they maintain the covered bridges which still exist to this day.

(July 21, 2015 at 5:34 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The point is that they are applying the term "civilization" to it on the assumption that what they see is writing.  Right now I think that is a bridge too far based on what they have uncovered but certainly worthy of further investigation.

The question is what you call a civilization. Look at the picture I posted - it's hard to say, this wasn't made by a civilization. Same goes for the cave paintings. I'm sure you're aware of how artful they are. That's civilized and doesn't require writing to call it that.

The point is, for a combined effort, such as creating a monument, like Stone Henge, a combined effort is required. And for that you need to be organised in one way or the other.

Well, as far as I understand it, the jury's still out on the one you posted. But I wouldn't be surprised. There's always something new cropping up, which I consider very exciting, regardless of the outcome.

One religious artifact...probably a fertility cult symbol...doesn't tell us much.

Pick your definition of "civilization."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civilization


I can't attribute too much of what I consider a "civilization" to be to a small group of paleolithic hunters drawing animals on a cave wall.  A culture?  Sure.  A "civilization?"  Not so much.

(July 21, 2015 at 5:53 pm)Minimalist Wrote: One religious artifact...probably a fertility cult symbol...doesn't tell us much.

Careful, that's still an assumption and probably will be forever. Truth is, noone can say what it was made for. That it stands for fertility is a good guess. If it stands for religion is up for debate.

I don't go by textbook definitions anyway. I would say, the borders between culture and civilization are fleeting. Fact is, we can't say, how the society they worked in looked like. We don't know anything about them. Neither their social structures nor who the actually were, since we have no bodies.

(July 21, 2015 at 6:02 pm)abaris Wrote: Careful, that's still an assumption and probably will be forever. Truth is, noone can say what it was made for.

It was the first "Yo' momma so fat" joke

There is a pattern, though.



These are Canaanite.






These are Harappan.




Let's face it, guys were always into tits and ass.